Monday, March 21, 2011

Qualifying My Reserved Excitement For US Action In Libya

In this post, I will not be addressing the Constitutionality of the United States going to war without the approval of Congress.  I admit that I need to study that more and desire to look through history and see how we have treated our entanglements without the people's consent.  I know we have.  Secondly, I am not going to address the right of the United Nations to use their power to coerce our sovereign nation into full scale battle.  I dislike the United Nations thoroughly and would that it never existed as it is now.  I find it to be full of mushy minds, uninterested in reality and deep thinking.  But, again, that's for another post.

What I want to convey here is my happiness at what America is doing in Libya.  I disagree with President Obama's assertion that it was necessary for us to go to war to protect the freedom of people in general.  I don't think that is our right - to be meddling in the affairs of a sovereign nation, merely because we disagree with the current policies. 

Sure, Qaddafi  was killing his people and is a defiant, ruthless pig of a human being.  But, in many ways, so was Stalin.  We used him for an ally in the second world war.  So also is the royal family of Saudi Arabia, frequently enforcing Sharia law which includes lashings for raped women and the cutting off of hands for those that steal.  If we want to have a discussion about freedom, we need to entangle ourselves on many fronts.  Heck, we should attack the aforementioned as well as China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, half the continent of Africa, and Antarctica to protect the freedom of the melting ice.  If we policed the world with the "freedom" philosophy - or better wrapped up with a bow - American democracy for all, we should never stop.

But, even though Obama qualifies our action in Libya as a protection of freedom for its citizens, I am still happy we have entered the fray.  For the simple reason that they asked.  Yes.  They asked!

A rebel spokesman, Mustafa Gheriani, said the following:

"We are telling the west we want a no-fly zone, we want tactical strikes against those tanks and rockets that are being used against us and we want a strike against Gaddafi's compound."

That is exactly what we are doing.  Sure, they are not a sovereign nation per se, but France recognized the rebel "government" in Benghazi as a legitimate nation.  After all, France assisted the United States in our quest for freedom from England during the Revolutionary war.  And most of what they did was just to shell British strongholds from the sea. Also, during the American Civil War, England and France assisted the South by building them ships under the radar and flirted with a larger entanglement, including almost starting a second front by invading the Union from Canada. Help for the South only soured after Abraham Lincoln proclaimed the Emancipation Proclamation, effectively stabbing a proverbial dagger into the heart of the rebel cause, being that the world abolition movement had nearly erased slavery from all corners of the western world.  Can we say brilliant?

I am convinced that if America was attacked and we requested assistance from the world, we would weep as our countrymen fell on the field of battle while the other nations of the world argued on principle. Even if the attack was from our own government and the request for assistance was from the "rebel" cause.

We have the means.  They asked.  We answered.  Let's get in, get it done, and then get out, letting them build their new country as they see fit.  If they want democracy, more power to them.  If they want a broken network of non-flush toilet tribes, then so be it.  I look forward to the afterglow of our latest entanglement.


  1. A bit unexpected, IC. I know you are for decisive, invitational action and not unilateral, drawn out engagement. But, we have been invited by many groups throughout the world yet do nothing. So, is there a standard or set of rules for such engagement? A size of a opposition group or potential of winning? Perhaps a history of snubbing and embarrassment from those against whom we are asked to intervene? Interesting ideas but certainly takes much thought before implementation.

  2. Excellent analysis...thoughts I've considered myself. I think all your points are to be considered for any action. For example, me thinks it would be foolhardy to attack China or Russia.